Talk:Child Marriage in the Qur'an: Difference between revisions

.I've found out something that I think is important and can make this article more truthful and more powerful. But I don't want to start messing with the lay-out of this great useful article. I haven't done a lot of work on this website, however I have been researching Islam for over a year. Here's the situation. In the section called "evidence from the hadith" the third verse is from Sahih Bukhari (volume 7, book 62, hadith 63). When I started to look at that hadith I noticed that the hadith itself seemingly has nothing to do with the (what seems to be) additional commentary at the end, concerning Iddah and surah 65 aya 4. So I felt reluctant using this hadith for my own article. Then I decided to look at the original translation by Dr. Muhammad Mushin Khan because a lot of the hadith that are online contain spelling errors. And to my surprise and delight, I found out that these websites have tried to hide what the commentary on Iddah by Bukhari is for. It does not belong to that hadith at all since this is the last hadith of chapter 8 in Mushin Khan's original book. The part actually is an introductory text to the next chapter (39) in his book. This chapter contains just one hadith and guess which hadith it is? "Volume 7, Book 62, Number 64 : Narrated by 'Aisha

That the Prophet married her when she was six years old and he consummated his marriage when she was nine years old, and then she remained with him for nine years (i.e., till his death)."

And guess what the name of that chapter 39 of Bukhari is? "Giving one's young children in marriage (is permissible)"

So to make a long story short: This hadith reference is wrong, its not hadith number 63 but 64 that should be cited. Although, this creates a slight problem. The online bukhari's become useless now because they appear to not contain what we claim they do. So we have to find a way to explain to the audience that the original Bukhari translation places the commentary with the next hadith. We can do it with pictures ive made that show this. But I'm not an expert with Wiki editing and like I said: i dont wanna ruin the lay out. So perhaps someone could help me with this?

If you want to see the proof I mention above: just go to www.kalamullah.com. There you click hadiths and you can download every volume of Bukhari there. Go to volume 7 and then when you're in the PFD just skip to page 57. There you'll find chapter 39 at the top. Just for fun scroll up and see the completely unrelated hadith that the online bukhari sites have attached that commentary too. And notice that in the original the commentary marks the start of a new chapter and gives you the marriage between Aisha and Muhammad as proof for legal marriage to pre pubescent girls.

--Truthseeker (talk) 13:58, 12 August 2013 (PDT)

Hi TS. Nice to have you back. I'll sort it out in while. There won't be any need to rearrange anything. I'll have to delete that online one and cite the hard copy on the hadith above it. ATM, we have both there already. It looks like one editor was reading a hard copy and the other the online version. Thanks. --Sahabah (talk) 17:26, 12 August 2013 (PDT)

Thanks. I think perhaps a picture of page 57 could contribute. And perhaps (but this is just a suggestion) the clear attempt to hide the meaning by corrupting the hadith, might be something we would be interested in to expose. Muslims often accuse other religions of having corrupted scripture. Well, since their Sahih Hadith is considered scripture to them and they clearly change around the words and meanings on sahih-bukhari.com and other webistes, like the Quran accuses others of doing, we can expose them for that. Truthseeker (talk) 08:12, 13 August 2013 (PDT)

For the page's subject matter, the quote as it is will be fine. Their attempt to hide things which they find unpleasant is interesting. If there were more such cases, it would probably make a good standalone article. But here it would be off-topic. I think at most it could be mentioned briefly in a footnote or something, but nothing more. --Sahabah (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2013 (PDT)

Thanks. I have something else. I noticed that Al Muslim is not cited here. We know Muslim is usually a copy of Bukhari, as it is in this case. But in this case the error/diversion discussed above is not there. So perhaps Muslim would be a wonderful addition? I apologize for not having the handyness to do it myself at the moment. I plan on learning the Wiki lingo soon. Here is the link to Sahih Muslim in where the chapter titel of Muslim (and therefor of Bukhari) is mentioned: http://www.hadithcollection.com/sahihmuslim/136-Sahih%20Muslim%20Book%2008.%20Marriage/11407-sahih-muslim-book-008-hadith-number-3311.html

Truthseeker (talk) 06:56, 16 August 2013 (PDT)

Hi TS. Thanks. It's been added to the page.--Sahabah (talk) 11:50, 16 August 2013 (PDT)